


Subjectivity in Fandom, and Why “Sympathetic” Character Tags are Useless: A Meta

by shnuffeluv



Category: Cartoon Therapy (Web Series), Sanders Sides (Web Series)
Genre: Essays, Gen, Meta, Sympathetic Characters, unsympathetic characters
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2021-02-19
Updated: 2021-02-19
Packaged: 2021-03-15 04:29:05
Rating: Not Rated
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 851
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/29553552
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/shnuffeluv/pseuds/shnuffeluv
Summary: Sympathetic and Unsympathetic Character tags are bullshit. Here's why.
Relationships: No Romantic Relationship(s)
Comments: 15
Kudos: 17





	Subjectivity in Fandom, and Why “Sympathetic” Character Tags are Useless: A Meta

I’m going to lose followers for this, I know it, but at this point, if you know anything about me you should know that when I snap I get highly opinionated, so here we go.

Sympathetic/Unsympathetic Character tags are useless. There. I said it. This is an essay on _why this is the case._

Long, long ago in the Sanders Sides fandom, a new character was revealed. This character was morally grey and had no right or wrong side to be on. Immediately, he was villainized by one of the other characters who called him a "Dark Side." People were arguing left and right about who he was when we only saw who he really was for about five minutes on screen. "He's a villain," screamed one half of fandom. "He's nothing more than a harmless threat," shouted the other half. And in between these two opinions were people who could see both sides of the coin, and wanted to play with this character's characterization.

The two sides agreed: "sympathetic" tags for when a character behaved "good," and "unsympathetic" for when a character behaved "badly." And for a while, everyone was happy. But this inevitably leads to a problem: what is considered "good" and what is considered "bad" behavior?

In stories with a plot, there is always a _protagonist_ and an _antagonist._ A protagonist is the "hero" of the story--the person you root for. And the antagonist is someone or something who works against the protagonist. The protagonist, however, does not have to be a hero in any sense of the word. The protagonist can be a serial killer, an arsonist, a murderer. The protagonist is who the story is about, regardless of their moral standing. In most cases, the protagonist is morally upstanding, but not always. And therein lies the above problem: what is "good" behavior and "bad" behavior, if a character is an antagonist but not morally corrupt?

Most people say that an antagonist is "unsympathetic," and leave it at that. But that is simplifying the issue into a black and white perspective, and we would be wise to not stray into that area of thinking. If the antagonist is a detective, and the protagonist is a serial killer, then the detective would not be "unsympathetic," as they are doing the "good" and "right" thing--they are stopping murders. But the protagonist is not inherently "unsympathetic" either. The protagonist is _designed_ to be a sympathetic character. Someone that people can cheer on and root for. That's what makes a good story.

If "unsympathetic" characters are simply characters who conflict, and neither side is "right," then both characters should get the "unsympathetic" tag. However, you can not tag every single character in your story as "unsympathetic," or you will not only lose readers but make a mess of your story and be unable to explain away why all of your characters are supposedly "bad."

The "sympathetic" tags are just as much a mess in the reverse. Who is the antagonist, and can we relate to their reasoning for their actions? They are no longer the definition of "unsympathetic." Yet, if you tag all your characters as sympathetic, you will get angry readers demanding why the antagonist is tagged as "sympathetic."

You can argue about how it's a case-by-case moral judgment all day until you are blue in the face. That does not solve the problem. It only brings into light the fact that sympathy is in the eye of the beholder. Humans are all inherently different. We have different experiences and different ideas. What is "sympathetic" to one would be "unsympathetic" to another, and suddenly there's a fandom war over a piece of fanwork that was simply meant for fun and enjoyment. It's not worth the headache to try and figure out what is "sympathetic" and what is not. People who are triggered by "unsympathetic" sides also have different ideas on what makes them unsympathetic, and where the line that shouldn't be crossed is. The entire argument makes no sense. There are no metric or even empirical standards for measuring morals. It's a fruitless effort and one that causes many authors anxiety and wastes energy. The one exception to this rule is "Dark Characters." While "Dark" is also subjective, it does not prescribe morals to a fictional character or the author writing the story. A serial killer can easily be identified as a dark character. It's much less easy to determine what "sympathetic" might mean when prescribed to that scenario.

In conclusion, sympathetic and unsympathetic tags are bullshit. I will only use them to describe my work if it will help readers find the content they want. If someone asks me to add a tag for the characters being sympathetic or unsympathetic, I will simply explain that those tags are too subjective for me to fret over constantly, and if it bothers them so much, they are free to block my account. I'm tired. I want fandom to be fun like it was when I was younger. And as such, I am no longer worrying about bullshit tags.

**Author's Note:**

> You can flame at me or argue at me all you want. Doesn't change my opinion.


End file.
